• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

PCGHRyseSon of Rome benchmarks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Grooveriding said:
Two different games perform differently on the same card... you don't say ?

No surprise to see the 980 getting lower frames in Ryse compared to Watch Dogs. Ryse is the best looking PC game as yet and Watch Dogs is a trainwreck.
Click to expand...

No, i said that Watch Dogs runs better on nVidia hardware than Ryse.
 
I would guess that clean ports just run better on GCN. Until game(if it does) and drivers get optimized.

The troublesome part this generation is that console ports got close to zero PC optimization in them.
 
A GTX780TI@1100MHz is 13% faster than a 280x@1020Mhz in Ryse while having more than 50% compute performance.

Seriously, there should be no discussion that Crytek is crippling performance on nVidia hardware and that nVidia need to rewrite the Shaders. We saw this with Dirt:Showdown or Sniper Elite 2.
 
ShintaiDK said:
I would guess that clean ports just run better on GCN. Until game(if it does) and drivers get optimized.

The troublesome part this generation is that console ports got close to zero PC optimization in them.
Click to expand...

That could be it. I think nvidia will make up some of the performance as well with drivers. They are due for a driver update soon, lots of recently released games do not have functioning SLI, new Maxwell features are not working or not working with SLI and DSR is coming to Kepler. There is a leaked mobile driver that has DSR for Kepler out currently.

This game is going to be added to review site's benchmark suites because of its best in class graphics and how demanding it is. It's a game that is going to see a lot of optimization just for that reason alone.
 
Even Pclabs admits some thrashing on NV side.

ryse_1440p_high.png


Even at low presets RSOR prolly looks better than most recent PC oriented titles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0SZXzTyok4
 
Grooveriding said:
That could be it. I think nvidia will make up some of the performance as well with drivers. They are due for a driver update soon, lots of recently released games do not have functioning SLI, new Maxwell features are not working or not working with SLI and DSR is coming to Kepler. There is a leaked mobile driver that has DSR for Kepler out currently.

This game is going to be added to review site's benchmark suites because of its best in class graphics and how demanding it is. It's a game that is going to see a lot of optimization just for that reason alone.
Click to expand...

It sure got potential for it. The only long term issue may be the FPS cap.

It does have some optimization in it tho. Even 2GB cards can run with everything on max. 😀

Oh, and only 26GB on the HD.
 
A good chunk of that 26GB is cutscenes, which are still 1600x900. Worst part about this port imo.

As for texture quality, the game seems to autodetect and sets it by itself, and it tries to fill vram as much as possible. You can force maxed out textures in the config file but I think that might cause issues. Also, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between med/high/very high because the game manages textures so well.
 
2GB or less vram cards:

Then there is a matter of textures. By default the game automatically determines the texture quality based on the available VRAM on your GPU. In the preview build, settings ranged from low to high but the final code has changed with settings ranging from low through to very high. GPUs sporting 3GB of memory or more default to the very high preset while 2GB cards are limited to high, 1.5GB cards limited to medium and 1GB cards access poverty-spec low-quality art. The game automatically selects the appropriate option and, by default, does not allow the user to adjust this setting.
Click to expand...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-ryse-pc-face-off
 
Gloomy said:
It's probably heavily optimized for the Bone and subsequently, GCN GPUs. I think this was just a quick port (though it does seem like a quality port nonetheless) so they likely didn't give Nvidia GPUs too much thought.
Click to expand...

This was my first thought.

What kind of graphical improvements have been made over the Xbone version? I ask this in consideration of AMD GPUs with much higher theoretical graphics performance than the Xbone like the 260X and 280.
 
Higher texture resolution and more AA options.
Otherwise is the same game with 4 or 5 predefinied keyboard layouts and the same 900p ingame videos...

It's just a money grab.
 
Last edited:
Better shadows, higher resolution. But yeah it's pretty much the Bone game ported over. That's not a bad thing though, it did look good running on the Bone.
 
sontin said:
So, an unoptimized console port runs bad on nVidia hardware. What's the deal?
I wish Crytek the best and hope that enough nVidia users get fooled to buy this crapport. They need every penny to survive.
Click to expand...


Maxwell is a new architecture, drivers will mature and more performance will be had. When the 7970 launched it wasn't hugely faster than the GTX580, now they are leagues apart. I wouldn't be surprised if there might be some untapped performance in Maxwell.

Also, the reality in PC gaming is the 'out of the box' experience may more routinely be better on AMD cards as the consoles all use closely related AMD graphics. I don't doubt that Nvidia will update drives as needed and get performance in line with how the cards should stack up. But, this just might be the way things are from now on.

No need to sound so defensive...
 
Last edited:
Gloomy said:
Better shadows, higher resolution. But yeah it's pretty much the Bone game ported over. That's not a bad thing though, it did look good running on the Bone.
Click to expand...

That is very true, considering it's a 768 GCN GPU and not something like Pictairn or Tahiti. I'm still in the market to replace my 5850, maybe in time for GTA5 hehe. I'm considering an R9 280 perhaps. Seeing those benchmarks without knowing what kind of real graphics improvements to the game was making me nervous about expected performance and graphics card longevity.
 
Last edited:
maybe nvidia should lobby for more tesselation 🙂

strange to see the 980 be on par without ssaa, but be 15% slower when it's turned on. the compression thingy not working so well with that?
 
sontin said:
Higher texture resolution and more AA options.
Otherwise is the same game with 4 or 5 predefinied keyboard layouts and the same 900p ingame videos...

It's just a money grab.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think developers should do to cater to the PC better? Certainly you won't get extra content or major gameplay changes. 😵

For the entire history of cross-development, PC titles were lucky IF they received high resolution textures (ultra) and more AA options.

If they did pre-rendered videos, scaling them up would make for an even bigger download, more QQ.

As a PC gamer foremost, better textures, resolution & AA are what I want to see available for the PC version. If it has that, it clearly shows the developers cared. To think some loyal NV user would go out of their way to throw dirt on these devs .. "it's a money grab"? LOL WTF are you expecting for your PC master race?

As for the graphics itself, you cannot claim its unoptimized when its running at great performance with SSAA AND giving superb overall IQ. You could say its unoptimized for NV hardware and hope for a driver fix.
 
You are right. How could i expect a great performing game as a nVidia user.
My bad. :hmm:

So i guess all this talk about Watch Dogs and Gameworks was just fud? Okay. I will remember this.
 
sontin said:
You are right. How could i expect a great performing game as a nVidia user.
My bad. :hmm:

So i guess all this talk about Watch Dogs and Gameworks was just fud? Okay. I will remember this.
Click to expand...


This game looks very nice, graphically. It will push systems. AMD's and Nvidia's best are quite close. I don't know what you're expecting?
 
Watch Dogs runs like garbage on all hardware and has crap graphics relative to the demands. The textures are weak even on Ultra. This game is the best or in the top 3 most advanced looking PC games. If you look at pcgameshardware comparison of PC vs. XB1, the PC version looks better. Is it our fault that an XB1 game ported to PC blows 99.9% of games graphically but happens to run faster in GCN hardware optimized Compute Shaders?
You realize that Compute was the key selling point of GCN vs. VLIW-4. Eric Demers even said that in his presentation that AMD could have continued using VLIW for many generations if they just wanted to make GPUs for traditional graphics.

You say 780Ti has 50% more compute than R9 280X. Obviously not. If you review compute benchmarks of R9 280X, especially OpenCL, 780Ti often gets killed and sometimes barely beats a 280X. And in hashing or double precision distributed computing projects NV isn't even on the map.

We've known for years that Kepler was amazing at games but not so great at compute. Now you have a game which was designed for XB1, so naturally it is going to be optimized for GCN hardware. This isn't like AMD paying millions to Crytek to undermine performance on NV cards. It is just the nature of how the game was designed for XB1, and naturally Crytek took advantage of GCN's Compute capabilities that most developers on the PC never even touch/exploit.

You saying that NV 980 runs Watch Dogs faster is not meaningful since Watch Dogs isn't even in the top 20 of the best looking PC games. Notice how every game that heavily used Compute shaders from Hitman Absolution to Sniper Elite 2 runs better on similarly priced AMD hardware? You keep denying this trend.
 
Last edited:
AtenRa said:
Its because GTX980 is not 20% faster than 290, it has nothing to do with anything else :whiste:
Click to expand...


Well, buckle in. All of the consoles have AMD graphics hardware, so I wouldn't be surprised if upcoming ports perform quite well on AMD cards at launch rather routinely. Just another way the console wins can pay dividends for AMD.
 
even the 6970 (not GCN) is slightly ahead of the GTX 580 (which is not the usual)

ryse_1080p_low.png


but looking at this graph I can't help but notice how much faster the 560 Ti in relation to the 560 and 460, it seems very wrong, http://anandtech.com/bench/product/543?vs=547

anyway, it's always cool to also see some testing done with older cards.
 
guys, running this game @ Max detail (maybe because I enabled Native Upscaling?) runs @ 60 FPS no problem with my config.

Come to think of it, I think the issue I have is that I can't change the resolution without enabling the native upscaling.. I haven't tried disabling it after I set my resolution, so maybe I'll try that when I get back...

i7-4770K @ 4.2
GTX 780
16GB
SBZ

running @ 1680x1050

P.S. I do enjoy motion blur!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top